What is in this article?:

House Democrats call for investigation of anti-competitive allegations against Motorola SolThree key House Democrats--Reps. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.) and Diana DeGrette (D-Colo.)--ask U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Inspector General (IG) John Roth to investigate allegations that Motorola Solutions won multiple contracts for public-safety LMR systems funded with federal grants that were not bid competitively or did not promote interoperability with other vendors.

About:

Three key House Democrats yesterday asked U.S.Department of Homeland Security(DHS) Inspector General (IG) John Roth to investigate allegations thatMotorola Solutionswon multiple contracts for public-safety LMR systems funded with federal grants that were not bid competitively or did not promoteinteroperabilitywith other vendors.

Reps. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.) and Diana DeGrette (D-Colo.) made the investigation request in a joint letter to Roth that repeatedly referenced a series of stories published by McClatchy news service in late March. That news series highlighted tactics used by Motorola Solutions to secure LMR contracts at the local, regional and state levels.

“We are concerned that the state and local jurisdictions discussed in the McClatchy articles, as well as many other jurisdictions, may have squandered federal grants, provided in part by DHS, as a result of questionable practices by Motorola,” the Democrats’ letter to Roth states. “If the allegations in the McClatchy articles are true, millions of federal tax dollars may have been wasted, and millions more are at risk.

“We therefore ask that you initiate an investigation to determine whether the abuses described in the McClatchy articles occurred and, if so, whether DHS grants were involved. If DHS grants were involved, we ask that you please propose changes to prevent a recurrence of these abuses.”

Waxman, Eshoo and DeGrette expressed concern about several findings in the McClatchy series, such as the state of Kansas awarding a $50 million contract to Motorola Solutions without a bidding process, because the deal was deemed to be an amendment—one of at least a dozen such amendments since 1991, according to the article—to a previous contract with the company.

Another allegation in the series is that Motorola included proprietary technology in its bids, which results in the entities having to contract with Motorola to maintain interoperability. One article cited in the letter notes that this strategy resulted in a $23 million contract to Motorola Solutions in Chicago.

The letter also highlighted a situation in California in which Alameda County purchased a Motorola master controller in 2005 that prevented interoperability with LMR equipment from other vendors, according to a McClatchy article.

“In 2007, the East Bay Regional Communications System Authority (EBRCSA) was formed to allow first responders in all jurisdictions in Alameda and Contra Costa counties to be able to communicate with one another when responding to major disasters or terrorist attacks,” the letter to Roth states. “However, leadership at the EBRCSA insisted that all participating jurisdictions purchase expensive Motorola equipment to ensure that their equipment works with Alameda County’s master controller.

“As a result, some jurisdictions, including Oakland, refused to join. McClatchy notes that Oakland ‘found itself squeezed out of millions of dollars in desperately needed federal grant money after it refused to join.’ It appears that the EBRCSA has received a number of Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) grants.”

New Mobile Phone Restriction RuleFor Commercial Motor Vehicle DriversOverview and BackgroundA new FMCSA rule restricts the use of all hand-held mobile devices by drivers of commercialmotor vehicles (CMVs). This rulemaking restricts a CMV driver from holding a mobile device tomake a call, or dialing by pressing more than a single button. CMV drivers who use a mobilephone while driving can only use a hands-free phone located in close proximity.Research commissioned by FMCSA shows that the odds of being involved in a safety-criticalevent (e.g., crash, near-crash, unintentional lane deviation) are 6 times greater for CMV driverswho engage in dialing a mobile phone while driving than for those who do not. Dialing driverstook their eyes off the forward roadway for an average of 3.8 seconds. At 55 mph (or 80.7 feetper second), this equates to a driver traveling 306 feet, the approximate length of a football field,without looking at the roadway!What is the definition of using a mobile telephone?•The use of a hand-held mobile telephone means:° Using at least one hand to hold a mobile phone to make a call;° Dialing a mobile phone by pressing more than a single button; or° Reaching for a mobile phone in a manner that requires a driver to maneuver sothat he or she is no longer in a seated driving position, restrained by a seat belt.What does this rule mean to drivers and carriers?• Fines and Penalties – Using a hand-held mobile phone while driving a CMV can resultin driver disqualification. Penalties can be up to $2,750 for drivers and up to $11,000 foremployers who allow or require drivers to use a hand-held communications device whiledriving.• Disqualification - Multiple violations of the prohibition of using a hand-held mobilephone while driving a CMV can result in a driver disqualification by FMCSA. Multipleviolations of State laws prohibiting use of a mobile phone while driving a CMV is aserious traffic violation that could result in a disqualification by a State of driversrequired to have a Commercial Drivers License.May 2012No Call, No Text, No Ticket1•What are the risks? - Using a hand-held mobile phone is risky becauseit requires the driver to reach for and dial the phone to make a call.Reaching for a phone out of the driver’s immediate area is risky as wellas dialing because these actions take the driver’s eyes off the roadway.• The rule applies to drivers operating a commercial motor vehicle on aroadway, including moving forward or temporarily stationary becauseof traffic, traffic control devices, or other momentary delays.• A mounted phone is acceptable as long as it is mounted close to thedriver.• Impact on Safety Measurement System (SMS) Results – Violationsnegatively impact SMS results, and they carry the maximum severityweight.It’s very easy tocomply with thenew rules:NoREACHINGNoHOLDINGNoDIALINGNoTEXTINGNoREADINGCompliance• Make sure the mobile telephone is within close enough proximity that it is operable whilethe driver is restrained by properly installed and adjusted seat belts.• Use an earpiece or the speaker phone function.• Use voice-activated dialing.• Use the hands-free feature. To comply, a driver must have his or her mobile telephonelocated where he or she is able to initiate, answer, or terminate a call by touching a singlebutton. The driver must be in the seated driving position and properly restrained by a seatbelt. Drivers are not in compliance if they unsafely reach for a mobile phone, even if theyintend to use the hands-free function.No Call, No Text, No Ticket!